The Place That Affected Me The Most (MARXIM)

The place that affected me the most? There are so many places, so many cities, and so many countries that have affected me over the years as I met people here and there, learnt things new and reacquainted myself with what I already knew, wherever I would happen to be living at any given time. Nevertheless, there is one place on which the spotlight shines the brightest. There is one particular bar in Budapest, Hungary with a communist feel to it. Situated on a side street where many don’t wonder into without knowing what’s there, in an area that gives you the feeling that you just traveled back almost 2 decades to Communist Hungary. All the buildings look the same, the several factories in view seemingly abandoned years earlier, the buildings deteriorating from a long life of joy and suffering. The left side of the road is populated by several rundown factories that on first glance seem as if they’d crumble from touch like a house of cards. The numerous windows that mark all walls of the factories are like the teeth of a jagged-toothed creature that just crawled out of the desert. On the right side of the road are blocks of concrete said to house human beings. Out of the wall of one of these concrete slabs sticks out a lighted red star half the size of a human being. The same building has its bottom floor painted with what possibly might have a very dazzling shade of red a decade or so ago, the paint in many places long gone, having crumbled to fine dust, an end that may one day face the rest of the building and all his ill-fated neighbors. This urban wasteland has only one bright spot of color in the form of a park only recently erected in an attempt to revive the area sick with bleakness.

The bright five-armed star that overlooks the once-red floor of the building gives off a somewhat eerie glow, yet still brilliantly lighting up the area at night, calling to it those who see it, like a mosquito lamp calls its prey. Upon close inspection, you may not wish to enter through the doorway under the star and step down those few stairs to enter through another door. Yet, there is something about the place that calls your name, that draws your attention, inviting you inwards. Behind this second door lies a crowd of people, bunched up like animals on a farm. Once you step through this door, the heat fabricated by those already inside slaps you in the face with enough force to drive the feeble-minded retracing their steps back out the door. The ceiling is curtained by a thick fog of cigarette smoke, temporarily brushed to one side every time the door opens or when the air conditioning is up and running. Your ears are blasted with the cacophony created by the mixture of people laughing, crying and talking loudly and drunkenly, the television shouting out whatever sports event happens to be on, and the music singing its way through the room to run into your eardrums. The luscious aroma of pizza with all its add-ons crawls up your nose and down to your stomach to tickle your hunger in order to wake him up, just so you can devour one of the gastronomically orgasmic pizzas this place is famous for. Every wall is tattooed with communist slogans and paintings, with red being the predominant color to dress the establishment. The animals on this farm are shacked up into booths like cages, separated by chicken wire, on top of which lies a coiled up snake of barbed wire. Chickens and roosters are drinking their water in one booth, while cows and bulls drink their choice of beverages in another. To finish the job, a burlesque portrait of V.I. Lenin, here known as W.C. Lenin, kindly directs those who temporarily inhabit the watering hole to a place where they may relieve themselves.

This is the place that affected me the most. No other place I’ve been to has ever granted me with such an atmosphere of excitement, joy, drunkenness, and laughter, just to name a small portion of all the feelings and emotions that I experienced within those four walls. The look of the place, the attitude of the people there, the feeling of belonging, all reasons why I spent every possible moment of my free time there with my best friends. It is what became to known as home, for that was where we were all the time, up to and beyond a point where we could be found there every weekend. The place that affected me the most, this small, obscure bar in a desolate neighborhood is called Marxim’s.

[Written 17.09.2002]

Modern Day Slavery

Jani Helle
24 May 2001
International Relations
Mr. Calabrese

Modern Day Slavery

Most people believe that slavery no longer exists, but it is still very much alive. According to human-rights organizations, there are at least 27 million people in bondage today. If this figure is correct, then there are more slaves in the world today than ever before.

The face of slavery has changed from the past centuries. There are a lot of white slaves in the world nowadays. Our images of slavery are those of whips, shackles, and auctions. The problem is that modern-day slavery, cruel hierarchies, cannot be immortalized into a photograph. The field of slavery, or trafficking as it is more commonly known as today, has divided into many smaller categories. The largest and the best known of these categories of slavery is international prostitution. There are also such forms of slavery as mail-order brides, servile marriage, debt bondage, child labor and forced labor. Although the vast majority of victims are no longer sold at public auctions, today’s slaves are often no better off than their predecessors a century or two ago. In many cases the slaves of today lead more brutal and hazardous lives. The trafficking of women is now considered the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and guns. The industry generates billions of dollars annually. The term, trafficking of women, is somewhat incorrect because many of the females are still young girls, ages 10-15, or even some as young as 8 years of age. Even young boys are victims of the trafficking. The U.S. Government’s definition of trafficking is:
“All acts involved in the transport , harboring, or sale of persons within national or across international borders through coercion, force, kidnapping, deception or fraud, for purposes of placing persons in situations of forced labor or services, such as prostitution, domestic servitude, debt bondage or other slavery-like practices.”

The trafficking of people for prostitution and forced labor is one of the fastest growing areas of international criminal activity in the world. Because the industry is underground, hard numbers are difficult to establish. An estimated 1 to 2 million people are trafficked each year worldwide. Trafficking affects virtually every country in the world. The largest number of victims come from Asia, with over 225,000 victims each year from Southeast Asia and over 150,000 from South Asia. The former Soviet Union is now believed to be the largest new source of trafficking for prostitution and the sex industry, with more than 100,000 trafficked each year from the region. Women who have been forced into prostitution have a hard time adjusting into society after they are released. For many, prostitution has been the only livelihood for years and they have nothing else to resort to. Trafficking women are often subjected to cruel mental and physical abuse in order to keep the in servitude. These punishments include beating, rape, starvation, forced drug use, confinement, and seclusion.

Trafficking has seen a rise in numbers over the last century or two. There have been many contributing factors. One such is the continuing subordination of women in many societies, societies which indirectly drive the daughters of impoverished families into prostitution or forced labor. Any war has flow of refugees out of the country. Many of these lose everything they had and have nothing to rely on for money. May of these refugees can only actually rely on prostitution for money. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic hardships that ensued forced poorer families out of Russia in search of money. Many women have resorted to prostitution because of the lack of opportunities in other fields. There is a high demand of trafficked women and children for sex tourism, sex workers, cheap sweatshop labor, and domestic workers. Most countries in the world don’t pose adequate laws in dealing with traffickers, allowing them to practically roam freely. In many Asian countries where the sex industry and the trafficking of women and children are booming, barely anything is done to stop them. The local police are more than often corrupt and frequent bordello patrons themselves.

Children play a significant role in modern-day slavery. They can be found weaving carpets in harsh conditions in India and in brothels in Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines, to name a few. Some children are outright kidnapped from the streets and taken to another country whilst others are tricked into slavery with false promises of good jobs and education abroad. Some are also simply sold by their parents who have fallen on hard times, mainly due to a drinking or drug problem nowadays. Many children, especially in the poorer countries in Asia, are often born into debt bondage. Their family or an earlier generation has taken a loan to help them through tough times. Hardly ever is this debt paid back and only increases over time. The poor families who took the debt have to pledged themselves and their offspring to labor. Debt bondage continues to enslave millions of Asians today.

The poorer regions of Asia have even, to an extent, accepted sexual enslavement as a way of life, and now families in these regions are for the first time welcoming a new-born baby girl as a guaranteed wage earner, and not as an economic burden.

Another aspect of the enslavement of women are mail-order brides. The sale of women is not a new phenomenon. Women have been sold and bought for thousands of years and it is even considered to be the “world’s oldest profession.” The modern method is to buy a wife by mail. The buyers are most often older white men who are looking for women as servants and sex partners. These women are very often from Asia; there are at least 50,000 Filipina mail-order brides in the U.S. alone.

Debt bondage, forced labor, and child prostitution aside, unbelievable as it sounds, pure chattel slavery still exists in the world. In Mauritania and Sudan, a person can still become the property of another for life, bought or sold, traded or inherited, and even branded and bred. Human rights organizations have even reported of slave markets in Sudan. Getting rid of slavery and trafficking is a intense issue. There are no occupations ready to occupy the millions of prostituted women and provide an equal amount of money for them. For millions and millions of people in the world slavery is a way of life and they can’t do anything to affect the outcome of their future. Who said slavery was abolished in the 1800’s?

Napoleon Bonaparte: His Successes and Failures

TO ANYONE RESEARCHING FOR AN ESSAY ON NAPOLEON, APPROACH WITH CAUTION.
THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN FOR A HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY CLASS AND THE LEVEL OF RESEARCH AND WRITING IS INDICATIVE OF THIS FACT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT NO SOURCES ARE REFERENCED, ALTHOUGH NUMEROUS SOURCES WERE USED AT THE TIME OF WRITING.
AS A FINAL WARNING, IF YOU CAN FIND THIS ESSAY ONLINE, SO CAN YOUR TEACHERS.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND WRITE YOUR OWN ESSAY.
THANK YOU.

Jani Helle
30 Jan 2001
History – Mackaill

Napoleon Bonaparte His Successes and Failures

Few can deny that Napoleon Bonaparte one of the most brilliant military figures in history. Militarily a very successful man, yet he wasn’t always successful. His successes outweigh his failures greatly. Yet it was these few failures that became his downfall.

Napoleon was born on August 15, 1769, in Ajaccio on the Mediterranean island of Corsica to a family of lower nobility. His father was an anti-French lawyer and as a youth Napoleon despised the French because he saw them as oppressors of his land. One reason for him becoming a conqueror was thought to be that he came from a radical family.
Napoleon was born as Napoleone Buonaparte, a Corsican-Italian, yet he went on to lead France. His home island of Corsica became French territory three months prior to his birth. Napoleon’s father had fought for Corsican independence, but after the French occupied the island in 1768, he served as a prosecutor and judge and entered the French aristocracy as a count. Through his father’s influence, Napoleon was educated at the expense of King Louis XVI, at the École Militaire in Paris. Napoleon graduated in 1785 and at the age of 16 joined the artillery as a second lieutenant. No Bonaparte before him had ever been a professional soldier.
[original high school essay found at janihelle.com. please do not copy.]
Napoleon was handed his first opportunity after the Revolution began. During the Revolution many officers of noble background were forced to go into exile. This allowed Napoleon to rise to positions that would have been impossible for him before as he lacked a title or a powerful benefactor. In 1793 he was assigned as a captain to an army attacking Toulon, a naval base that, aided by a British fleet, was in revolt against the republic by the Corsicans. He seized ground where his guns could drive the British fleet from the harbor and Toulon fell. As a result he was promoted to brigadier general at the age of 24 and gave him recognition in the new government of France.

With the fall of Robespierre and the “Reign of Terror”, Napoleon’s career came into jeopardy. Nevertheless, his savior came when he saved the National Convention from an attack by an angry mob. After saving the government, Napoleon was made commander of the French army in Italy. In what was his first big campaign, he defeated four Austrian generals in quick succession and every time the armies against him were bigger and bigger. Yet he defeated them on all occasions. He came within 80 miles of Vienna before the Austrians surrendered. . In the treaty from this campaign, France gained territory and was bale to stretch it’s borders. The Austrian campaign was the first sign of Napoleon’s military genius and an example of the years to come. He became a national hero in France. He had started his conquest to rule Europe

One nail on Napoleon’s coffin was the Royal Navy of Great Britain. Napoleon marched into Egypt in 1798 with his army in an attempt to conquer Egypt and thus cut British trading routes to the Middle-East and India and give the French naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Napoleon easily took over Egypt but as he was conquering Egypt, the British fleet, commanded by Lord Nelson, destroyed the French fleet and left napoleon and his army stranded. Although militarily the Egyptian campaign accomplished little, the French presence in Egypt had great significance in other areas. Napoleon took with him many experts to Egypt to study the artistic and literary treasures of the country. Their most significant find was the Rosetta Stone, the key to understanding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Because of his failure to accomplish his goals for Egypt, Napoleon returned to France with a handful of his soldiers. To his luck, the French people had not heard of his defeat in Egypt and had been falsely told that it had been a success. This gave him immense support from the French people. Had the people known of his failure when he arrived back in France, there would have been little chance of him ever reaching anywhere near as high as he eventually did.
The Egyptian campaign was not the only time when Napoleon was bested by the Royal Navy. After having his navy annihilated by the British on several occasions, Napoleon decided that invasion of England was impossible as long as the Royal Navy patrolled the waters of England. Great Britain was the only European country that Napoleon did not manage to invade, all thanks to the Royal Navy. Napoleon may have had the greatest army on earth but Great Britain had the greatest navy.
[original high school essay found at janihelle.com. please do not copy.]
Upon return in France from his Egyptian failure, Napoleon became aware that the French people were not happy with the Directory and was crying for a new government. What Napoleon did next began his path to success. With two other directors, Napoleon overthrew the Directory and set up the Consulate, with the three men themselves as the Consuls. Napoleon, being the First Consul, was given almost dictatorial powers and after three years he revised the constitution to make him consul for life. The French people didn’t object to it even though it, to some extent, brought France closer to returning back into a monarchy. The French people loved their hero. They loved him even when two years on he crowned himself Napoleon I, Emperor of France.

Militarily Napoleon at this time was an undoubted genius. Fighting was not the only thing he knew how to do. He proved to be a superb civil administrator. In 1802 the English and German states were tired of fighting and signed a peace treaty with France. With all other European countries allied to or under the control of Napoleon, it was the first time since 1792 France was at peace with the whole world. During those 14 months of peace Napoleon drastically changed Europe. One of Napoleon’s greatest achievements was the revision and collection of French laws into codes. Under the Code Napoleon, feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and freedom of religion established everywhere except Spain. Each state was granted a constitution, providing for universal male suffrage and a parliament, and containing a bill of rights. French-style administrative and judicial systems were required. Schools were put under centralized administration, and a system of free education was planned. Higher education was open to all who qualified, regardless of class or religion. Constitutional government remained only a promise, but progress and increased efficiency were widely realized. The Code napoleon became the law in all kingdoms under Napoleon, but it was not until after Napoleon’s fall did the people of Europe fully appreciate the benefits he had given them by giving the continent a common law. Today, the impact of the Code Napoleon is apparent in the law of many European countries.

The one country that Napoleon could never influence or invade was Great Britain. Having experienced that he could not defeat the British because of its superior navy, Napoleon established the Continental System, a French-imposed blockade of Europe against British goods. He figured if he couldn’t beat Great Britain with common warfare, he would do it with economic warfare. This began the sequence of events that led to the weakening of his empire and his demise. Portugal was one of the few countries that defied the Continental System and in 1807 Napoleon seized Portugal, placing his brother Joseph as king of Spain. This set off a rebellion there, which became known as the Peninsular War. Napoleon himself appeared briefly and scored victories, but after his departure the fighting continued for five years, with the British backing Spanish armies and guerrillas. The Peninsular War cost France 300,000 casualties and untold sums of money, and contributed to the eventual weakening of Napoleon’s empire.
[original high school essay found at janihelle.com. please do not copy.]
Another country that defied the Continental System was Russia. Being defied, Napoleon set out to conquer Russia with the biggest army Europe had ever seen. He marched on to Russia with half a million soldiers. The Russian army was weak and was easily pushed back. When Napoleon reached Moscow he found it deserted and a fire mysteriously broke out, destroying a large part of the city. With 500,000 to feed and provide shelter for, Napoleon had nothing to do so with. As winter fell upon his army, Napoleon, in humiliation, gave in and began the long, treacherous journey back to France. He returned with 20,000 soldiers by his side, having suffered enormous losses in the cold of the winter. Upon return, he found that his allies and former enemies had taken to the example of Spain and Portugal and began to oppose the empire. With all of Europe united against him, he was forced into exile on the small island of Elba off the coast of Italy where he was allowed to keep his title of emperor and build a small empire. In a year’s time he escaped and marched through France, collecting the support of his former subjects. Napoleon asked peace of the allies, to no avail. The result was a campaign into Belgium, which ended in defeat at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815. In Paris, crowds begged him to fight on, but the politicians withdrew their support. Napoleon surrendered and was exiled once again, this time to St Helena, a remote island in the south Atlantic Ocean, where he remained until his death on May 5, 1821.

Although Napoleon was sometimes a tyrant and always dictatorial or authoritarian, he and his army spread the Code Napoleon into every country within his empire. He was also an enlightened monarch, a concept that did not fit the time. Napoleon’s influence is evident in France even today. Reminders of Napoleon are everywhere in Paris, the most notable of them being the Arc de Triomphe, which was built to honor his victories. France’s basic law is still the Code Napoleon, and the administrative and judicial systems are still essentially Napoleonic. Napoleon’s radical changes of Europe in his time laid the groundwork for the revolutions of the 19th century.

Napoleon had a dream that he would be the next Alexander the Great. And he came close achieving the same as Alexander. Both extended the Where Alexander the Great had spread Hellenism into the lands he conquered, Napoleon introduced an enlightened government and society into the lands he conquered. Though both men fought great enemies, Napoleon ran into an enemy that Alexander the Great never faced. The enemy that brought on the harshest blow to Napoleon was winter. A military genius who had conquered most of mainland Europe fell to the bitter Russian winter, an enemy he hadn’t thought about.
[original high school essay found at janihelle.com. please do not copy.]
At St Helena, Napoleon said, “Waterloo will erase the memory of all my victories”. He was wrong. For better or worse, he is best remembered as a general and a military genius, not for his enlightened government. Not to say that the latter should be omitted from the history books or have less significant importance. Quite the opposite. Had Napoleon not spread the enlightened government around mainland Europe, Europe, and in turn the rest of the world, would probably not be what it is today and we might still be living through major revolutions in Europe.

This essay was written by Jani Helle in 2001 for a high school history class. No guarantees can be given for historical accuracy as this is not a peer reviewed piece of work, although the essay was well researched. For your own sake, do not use as a reference. Original essay at JaniHelle.com.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Jani Helle
10 April 2001

Mikhail Gorbachev
”Because of me the world is a better place.”

Did Gorbachev make a difference in the world? He certainly had a major impact on today’s world. But the question is, did he make the world a better place? As is the case in many questions of this sort, it all depends who you are and though whose eyes are you viewing him and his achievements. If you are a communist, he is the destroyer of your ideal world, the man who brought down the mighty Soviet Union and the model of communism. To those now independent states that were under Soviet rule for the better part of 70 years, he is your liberator, the man who handed you the freedom to rule yourself and your nation. To those who lived under the fear of the Cold War around the world, Gorbachev ended the confrontation between two superpowers and with it the threat of a war that truly had the potential to be a global catastrophe and possibly mark the end of life as we know it. Gorbachev achieved so much in half a dozen years that his actions touched many aspects of the world and especially the Soviet Union.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was born on March 2nd 1931 in Privolnoye, Soviet Union (now part of Russia). He grew up and went to school in his hometown and even hid there during the German invasions of the Second World War. At age 19 he made two choices that greatly affected his life. He applied for membership in the Communist party and chose to go study law at the Moscow State University. In 1952 he was accepted into the Communist party, the first step in his long political career. For the next thirty years he would steadily climb the ladder of power in the Communist party. Gorbachev was very successful in gaining the favor of some of the most powerful men in the Soviet Union then and in the years to come. In 1980 he became full member of the Politburo, the policymaking body of the Communist party, and at 49, he was the youngest of the dozen or so powerful men of the Politburo.

As leaders of the Soviet Union changed rapidly from one to another because of illnesses related to old age or other health problems, Gorbachev himself climbed the ladder to fill in positions left vacant due to promotions. After the death of the Soviet leader Chernenko, Gorbachev was elected general secretary of the Communist party, a post that meant that he had taken over the leadership of the Soviet Union. When this happened in 1985, Gorbachev, at 54, was the youngest man to hold supreme power in the USSR since Joseph Stalin. In his nomination speech, foreign minister Andrei Gromyko said of Gorbachev, “This man has a nice smile, but he has got iron teeth.” (Sullivan, Mikhail Gorbachev, p 55.). The Soviet Union had a tradition of concealing the background and social life of its leaders, and that didn’t change with Gorbachev whose true being was unknown to the Western world. But he was also greatly unknown in the nation he looked after. But in a very short time the whole world would know who he was and what his intentions were. He replaced aging members of the Politburo with younger people more open to reform. Between 1985 and 1990, Gorbachev encouraged an independent press and sought to reform Soviet society by introducing perestroika (Russian for “restructuring”) of the economy and glasnost (Russian for “openness”) in political and cultural affairs. Gorbachev would be tested early in his leadership when after only a year as Soviet leader, Gorbachev was faced with dealing with the grimmest disaster imaginable to any leader. In April 1986, an event that the world would never forget took place in what is now Ukraine. I guess we all know the story of the Chernobyl nuclear power station catastrophe. The accident complicated Gorbachev’s attempts at reforms in the economy of the Soviet Union. Yet he walked from the accident with his reputation intact and called for greater safety measures in dealing with nuclear power. With this he set up the Soviet Union as a leader in the field of nuclear safety.

During the Gorbachev Era, most the Soviet Union’s and Gorbachev’s greatest achievements and successes, at least in the eyes of the Western world, were in the field of international affairs. Closest to home, Gorbachev allowed, maybe not intentionally, but he did allow the Eastern European nations under the Soviet Union to eventually break free and gain their independence. Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan and helped achieve a negotiated solution to the long-running regional conflicts in Angola, Nicaragua and Cambodia. During the Gulf War, the Soviet Union cooperated with the US and its allies to use economic and military pressure oust Iraq from Kuwait in the Gulf War. The icing on this cooperation was that Iraq was a long-time Soviet ally. In 1989 Gorbachev visited China and came away from the visit having normalized relations with China after a 30-year break in relations. Also in 1989, Gorbachev met with Pope John Paul II in Rome. Gorbachev promised that the Soviet Union would allow full religious freedom, and with this the Soviet Union and the Vatican agreed to establish diplomatic ties. In addition to these major achievements and actions, the Soviet Union also agreed on unilateral reductions in its military forces and their presence in Eastern Europe and along the Sino-Soviet border. Relations with Israel also improved dramatically, as the USSR relaxed emigration restrictions on Soviet Jews.

But the one thing that Gorbachev is accredited with achieving more than anything is to bring an end to the Cold War that had kept the world in fear for several decades. Between 1985 and 1991, Gorbachev held a series of summit conferences with U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush and signed a series of arms control agreements. These agreements called for both the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate medium-range and certain shorter-range missiles as well as other substantial cuts in strategic nuclear weapons, and end production of chemical weapons and reduce stockpiles of the weapons. In accordance to and as a result of these agreements, the defense budget and the size of the armed forces of the Soviet Union and later of Russia were cut significantly. Within a year or two of the end of the Cold War, nationalist forces became stronger in the republics that made up the Soviet Union as the year went on. The USSR voted itself out of existence in December 1991, and Gorbachev resigned his position as President of the USSR. He could have foreseen his own resignation as he hadprepared the ground and the atmosphere that made his resignation possible.

To say that the world is a better place because of Gorbachev is, on the whole, quite true. In saying that I’m omitting some aspects of life and especially many problems in Russia today. Saying that the world is a better place because of Gorbachev, full stop, I’m only viewing the world from the Western point of view and what ties in with Western ideals. To step into the shoes of a Russian, I’d see it all somewhat differently. Gorbachev did bring an end to the Communist regime and in a sense returned the rights of the Russian citizens. But what has happened in Russia in the decade following the fall of the Soviet Union, many aspects of life have either stayed the same or gone from worse to bad. One of Gorbachev’s reforms of the Soviet Union, perestroika called for the restructuring of the nation’s economy and for democratic free-market reforms. Gorbachev admitted that his government made some mistakes in during the years of perestroika. That coupled with the deliberate efforts by the policy’s opponents to shatter the country’s financial system brought about the collapse of the consumer market in Russia and caused problems for the governments of Gorbachev’s followers, especially Boris Yeltsin. Gorbachev should not and does not take the fall for the economic problems in Russia today. The state of Russia today did not unfold from Gorbachev and his contribution in the demise of the Soviet Union. As Russian novelist Tatyana Tolstaya wrote in her profile on Gorbachev for TIME Magazine,
Corruption did exist under Gorbachev; after Gorbachev it blossomed with new fervor. Oppressive poverty did exist under Gorbachev; after Gorbachev it reached the level of starvation. Under Gorbachev the system of residence permits did fetter the population; after Gorbachev hundreds upon hundreds of thousands lost their property and the roofs over their heads and set off across the country seeking refuge from people as angry and hungry as they were.
(Tolstaya, ”Mikhail Gorbachev”, TIME Magazine (Internet Edition)

While Gorbachev favoured a slow-paced reformation, the fast-paced reform policy that Yeltsin chose contributed greatly to the terrible economic situation. But Gorbachev had left Yeltsin faced with a very difficult situation and he just followed the wrong path in solving it. To revert back to Western views, Gorbachev’s main achievements were in his foreign policy and especially the downfall of the Soviet Union. He brought an end to the Cold War and did away with the only conflict that endangered the entire globe. Some people regard Gorbachev as a hero because they believe he is was the main contributor to the demise of an ideology considered by many in the West at the time to be loathsome. But Gorbachev never meant to abolish communism. On the contrary, being a stout believer in communism, he wished to save it by transforming it. Granted, few will miss the Soviet Union of the last 74 years, least of all those who lived under its monstrous tyranny. The political system that Lenin imposed on Russia and the world in 1917 with the creation the Soviet Union along with the followers of Lenin and his system in men, or monsters which ever way you wish to view it, like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot caused more misery and murder than any other political movement in the 20th century.

For helping to end the Cold War and allowing former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe to oust their Communist regimes, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1990. The prize was well deserved. He was also chosen as TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Decade for the 1980s. Quite impressive for a Soviet Leader. Because along with the demise of the Soviet Union Gorbachev brought along his own demise and fall from power, he lost recognition for his actions and achievements. But not all. He did more for the freedom of his people than anyone else since Alexander II. Gorbachev’s place in history has been assured. Combining all views on the subject, I guess I can safely say that because of him, the world is a better place. A Russian might object to my view, but so it goes.

To what extent can the process of Italian unification be explained in terms of the rise of nationalism?

Jani Helle
25.11.03

To what extent can the process of Italian unification be explained in terms of the rise of nationalism?

Nationalism can be defined as having a sense of belonging and loyalty to ones country or nation state. Within Europe, the idea of nationalism was first sported by France, a concept that would later one influence many countries in Europe. One result that nationalism had on Europe was the wanting of unification. The idea was that the people of nation states wanted their own country, one to be shared with other Germans or Italians or Slavs, people with the same nationalistic feel about their land and nation.
Italian nationalism roots from 1797 when Napoleon conquered the Italian peninsula and created the puppet Kingdom of Italy. During his European conquests, Napoleon combined the smaller Italian city-states into larger units to make his rule more efficient. Opposition to him as a foreign ruler was the clincher in creating the concept and reality of Italian nationalism. In the 1830s this nationalism expanded, for the same reasons as it had bloomed several decades earlier. This time the object of resentment wasn’t Napoleon or France, but the oppressive Austrian rule and domination and felt that the only way to progress was to become united. The concept of unification derived from the Risorgimento, the process of Italian unification. In the middle of the 19th century the Risorgimento took shape as a political and cultural movement for Italian unification, led by the increasing nationalist feelings at the time, after having already picked up wind from the dissatisfaction with the re-establishment of many of the old monarchies after the Vienna settlement of 1815. The theory of The Risorgimento was that it was the cultural, social and political rebirth of Italy, and there were many people and growing political groups who supported this idea that Italy needed to reform in all of these aspects, especially politically.
However, although Italians generally agreed that unification was needed for Italy to progress there were many differences in how it should come about between different nationalist groups, namely those of the Republicans, the monarchists and the nationalists. The Republicans wanted the abolition of the monarchies in favour of republican or democratic institutions. The monarchists wanted to lead a revolt against the Austrians and set up a Northern kingdom complete with a constitutional government and freedom of press, and they felt they could do this as they were the most economically developed of all the states. The nationalists were in favour of a confederation of Italian states. This split in the nationalistic views of Italy was to be a thorn in the side of the concept of unification.
If we assume that nationalism was the key issue in the unification if Italy, then we must take into consideration the issues of unity and the entire spectrum of Italian citizens. The Risorgimento, the movement of Italian nationalism, cannot be considered as a united front, as the fact of the matter was that the majority of the population of the states which unified Italy came to consist of were indifferent to such a concept as being unified with their “neighboring brothers”. It was the nationalism and innovation of a handful of people from Piedmont, Venetia, Tuscany and so on. History mentions only those who really mattered directly, such as Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Giuseppe Mazzini, Giuseppe Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel, but in addition to the clear historical significance of these characters, the part of unmentioned nationalists around Italy are worth remembering. It was amongst this small minority of people, who believed in Italy as a great unified nation, that the notion of the Risorgimento existed.

Although Italian nationalism played a key role in achieving the unification of Italy, its role was not the leading one. Following Italian unification, problems in Italy did not cease as the people of Italy remained disunited, a fact that would lead to further problems in the years to come. If Italian nationalism had been united throughout the peninsula, then problems of later days may have been avoided. Italy’s national identity, one of the key factors of nationalism, was by no means jointed, but rather conflicted, leading on to assumptions that Italian nationalism may have been Piedmontese nationalism or even more so the nationalistic feelings of a few key individuals and groups. As mentioned before, the nationalism of Cavour, Mazzini, Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi as well as the minority who comprised of the notion of Risorgimento played a significant role in the final end result of Italy, the unification of Italy finally fully achieved in 1870. Yet, this is not enough to explain why all of Italy joined Piedmont and accepted Piedmont laws and government, as well as being placed under Victor Emmanuel, the king of Italy, especially within such a small period of time. The achieved end result could not have been achieved had it not been for more or less nationalistic political leaders within Italy, such as Cavour and Garibaldi, as well as Mazzini.
Giuseppe Mazzini was a major factor in the unification of Italy. He started his fight for unity with non-violent means. He tried wearing black clothing to mourn the persecuted, and he attempted to educate the people about the dangers of foreign rule in Italy. Gradually however he escalated to more violent means of getting his way. He stirred feelings of Nationalism, brotherhood and religion. In 1848 he started a revolution in Rome. The Pope was forced to flee the city, and Mazzini established a Roman Republic. The entire republic was built upon the one-time rage of the masses. Mazzini simply stirred the emotions of the people, but they didn’t really feel that strongly about it. The population of Rome didn’t care enough to fight for the retention of the city. The French were easily able to re-take the city, and return it to the Pope. Mazzini nationalism was hence based upon ridding Italy of foreign rule, and because of this assisted and supported Garibaldi in his quest in Italy and Sicily.
Count Camillo di Cavour was the Prime Minister of Piedmont. His role was significant as a political leader and he dominated the Italian political scene for 3 decades and was the main spokesmen of liberal forces. His fundamental ideas were based upon liberty and progress since he was for evolution. Cavour’s formula was “free church in a free state”, as well as a free economy in a free state. Cavour also believed that Austria was gaining too much power and needed to be rejected. However, he believed that to do so, he needed a foreign help. Cavour increased taxation and was convinced that a strong military was the key to Italy’s future. A believer in monarchy and a loyal supporter of Victor Emmanuel, Cavour was a nationalist who worked hard to rid Italy of any foreign rule and domination. Where as Mazzini stood for nationalistic ideology, Cavour stood for political leadership. Cavour was also a believer in Realpolitik, or Realistic Politics, allowing him to take steps that idealists like Mazzini would never make. Cavour believed in constitutional monarchy and was a practical person willing to compromise in order to create a unified Italy under the monarchy of Piedmont-Sardinia. After Cavour’s death, Victor Emmanuel experienced troubles in replacing him, as his web of politics was too intricate for his followers who couldn’t climb to his levels of influence and status within history.
Cavour encouraged the investment of foreign capital from countries such as Britain and France to develop industry in Piedmont. Britain and France now had a financial interest in Italian unification and the elimination of all Austrian influence from the Italian peninsula. Public opinion mounted in Britain and France in favor of the unification of Italy. Britain stood to gain increased trade from an independent Italy. France wanted to weaken Austria, especially after 1858, hoping to gain new territory in northwestern Italy. Issues such as these were more crucial to the unification of Italy, more so than nationalism, the role of a minority in Italy.

Nationalism in the 1800s was still a new idea. Even though many did begin to feel strongly for their country and nation, the general consensus of the population were content with the way were, as truth be told, most of them had relatively little idea of what was going on in the world around them. Yet, the role or nationalism in the unification of Italy must not be undermined as it did play a significant role, just not as large as other influences, especially outside influences and political influences. The rise of nationalism in Italy in the mid-1800s did result in unification, but not as the general and unified sentiment of the people.

The United States and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

The United States and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

The Soviets had four elements that they regarded to be of great importance to the preservation of the communist system in the Eastern European satellite states. These four elements were: a effective and unified communist party leadership; a strong and determined state security force; a loyal and disciplined armed force and military leadership; and a strict control of all media. Any hint of unrest in any of these four guidelines immediately set off warning bells within the Soviet decision-making mechanism. The breakdown of all four of them at once, as happened in Hungary in 1956, left the Soviets with only two options: either accede to Hungary’s desire for independence and risk unleashing similar forces throughout the satellite countries or to reinstate their supremacy over the country with force. There was little doubt as to which option the Soviet leadership was going to choose in an emergency, such as the Hungarian uprising was. Hungary’s separation from the socialist bloc was simply unimaginable and was to be prevented at all costs.

The events that took place on October 1956 in Hungary caught the American government completely by surprise even though it was extremely well informed about the political changes that were taking place in these countries. What it had never expected was for Hungary to stand up against the Soviet Union in an armed uprising.

The Hungarian revolution was not only against American interests, but an inconvenience for the Eisenhower administration. The turbulent events in Hungary disturbed and, at least for a while, halted the by then promising and successful détente, or agreement, process between the East and the West.

The Soviet Union never considered letting the satellite states desert the Communist bloc. Ultimately only a more offensive stance from the West would compel the Soviet Union to surrender its East European domains. One such move came from the American government, which devoted considerable sums of money towards the funding of revolutionary radio stations and other such organizations. Reference to liberation of the captive nations was, all the way up until October of 1956, a mandatory part of all high-level American political statements, which were subsequently transmitted to Eastern Europe by various propaganda organizations, particularly Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. All this served to create the illusion, not only in Eastern Europe and the United States, but throughout the entire the world, that the United States, which had in fact never shown any real interest in the region, had made the liberation of these nations the cornerstone of its foreign policy and of East-West relations in general.

In reality, American foreign policy of this era was based on the prevailing balance of power with the Soviet Union and the avoidance at all costs of superpower conflict.
Thus the American government, especially after it had discovered that the Soviet Union had made unexpectedly rapid progress toward developing an intercontinental ballistic missile, the United States sought to relieve political tension between the East and the West by finding an acceptable form of agreement with the Soviet Union, an agreement that would enable peaceful coexistence between the East and the West.

The American leadership, however, having been fully aware from the beginning of that they had only very limited options regarding any sort of intervention within the Soviet sphere of influence. It was nonetheless very important for the United States to conceal this impotence on order to preserve its international prestige. They maintained a two-sided approach to the crisis. On the other hand, they tried to minimize the harm that their necessary condemnation of the Soviet intervention would do to the blooming Moscow-Washington relationship. On the other, they were eager to convince the world that the United States was not waiting idly by while an Eastern European nation was fighting for its freedom.

After the outbreak of armed uprising and the Soviet intervention, Hungary’s fate came to be almost entirely dependent on the reactions of the great powers and other members of the world community. Those in Hungary who took up arms against the Soviet Union were convinced by all the misleading liberation propaganda that the West, particularly the United States, would come true with the promises to provide armed assistance to the Hungarian people if they rose up against Soviet domination, or at the very least that it would employ all the political weapons at its disposal in order to force the Soviet Union to agree with the Hungarian desire for independence.
All that they thought were illusions. As no help came to the assistance of the Hungarians, their revolution was destined for failure. The non-response of the West in November 1956 gave the Soviets full assurance that should any future conflict take place within their empire, they would be free to see to it as they saw fit, as there would be no concern of Western interference. To an extent, the Hungarian revolution was to the advantage of the Soviet Union, for it gave them freedom to resolve internal matters without interference from the West.

Although the claim has been perpetually repeated by Communist propaganda, the West was not directly responsible for instigating the Hungarian revolution. The Western powers not only did not help to ignite the Hungarian revolution, but it did not even remotely expect that an open conflict, let alone an armed uprising, would erupt in one of the Soviet satellite states. However, the two-sided foreign policy of the United States toward Eastern Europe undoubtedly contributed indirectly to the fact that social unrest in Hungary eventually evolved itself in the form of an armed uprising.

The matter of the Hungarian crisis was addressed in a meeting of the National Security Council, the United States’ highest-level advisory body, on October 28th. It was here that a proposal was made of offering assurances to the Soviets that the United States would not seek to exploit the possible independence of the satellite countries in any way that could threaten the security of the Soviet Union. The plan called for the US, through diplomatic channels, to convince the Soviets that a zone of strictly neutral, non-NATO countries would offer the Soviet Union just as much security as the existing buffer if satellite countries. Then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles didn’t fully agree with the plan, and with President Eisenhower’s assent proceeded to drop any reference to both neutrality and prohibition on NATO membership. In the end, Dulles had downsized the plan to one sentence: “We do not look upon these nations as potential military allies.” The new version did not entirely meet the aim of satisfying the Soviets. The Soviets logically assumed it to mean that the United States was not going to take any action whatsoever on behalf of the independence of Eastern Europe. The United States’ weakness on the Eastern European front had been revealed to the Soviets and they knew they could exploit it.

By the summer of 1957, the Soviet Union had developed its first generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The new Soviet missiles posed a threat to not only Western Europe but directly to US territory. The strategic invulnerability of the United States vanished almost overnight. As the Soviets had now climbed to the United States’ level in the arms race and had even passed them, the US saw that they could not intervene militarily in Hungary and threaten a war with the Soviet Union. The Eisenhower administration wanted to show the world and the American public that they could not risk a war between superpowers to help the cause of the Hungarian Revolution. Behind the Western response to the Hungarian revolution was the realization that any sort of Western military intervention in Hungary contained the very likely threat of war with the Soviet Union, quite possibly to be fought with thermonuclear weapons, which would likely lead to the eradication of the very Eastern European peoples which intervention was designed to liberate. And all this over Hungary. The US, though, was willing to commit themselves thoroughly to make the aftermath somewhat bearable. In the aftermath of the Hungarian revolution, the US government found itself under fire from the Western press. They were accused of first having urged the Hungarians to revolt and then abandoned them in the event of the subsequent revolution, amidst their calls for military assistance. The government replied that while they had been deeply concerned over the “enslaved nation” and had continuously expressed their concerns, they had never encouraged suicidal uprisings. It was no less than a clear and open admission that, should similar uprisings occur in the future, Eastern Europe could not expect any help at all from the United States.

Jani Helle
11 Feb 2001

Essay: Peace

This is an essay I wrote several years ago as a high school assignment. I kinda like it.

Peace

With the enormous diversity of the world, is peaceful co-existence achievable? This world is not built on one idea, on one belief, or on one view on anything. There are over six billion individuals on this planet, following many different beliefs and ideals, everyone with their own idea of the world. With this in mind, how can two people, let alone six billion live together in peace, be able to co-exist without quarrel, to the end of time? As humans, can we achieve world peace?

Peace is a concept that everyone has an image of in his or her head, shaped as everyone themselves sees it. Is peace a world of butterflies and green pastures that some people may see it as? Or is it to be able to wake up in the morning with a smile on your face and at night go to sleep with the very same smile, undeterred? Or is it something more political, such as the elimination of border disputes, armed conflicts, and going to war over menial issues such as religion, race, or personal grudges of political leaders?

As humans and as nations, we’re never completely satisfied. Humans always want more, want the best, want everything better and more expensive that our neighbors. Countries always want more land, more money, more resources, more markets, more of everything good. The world is greedy. Human and national differences will always get in the way of achieving peace. As humans we bicker and quarrel over menial things such as money, jobs, fame, looks, even the fact that our neighbor’s apple tree is dropping it’s leaves on our yard. And those are the smallest of things we fight about. Caucasians, consciously or unconsciously, see themselves as the main race, the main skin color. It’s the White Man’s World. Everyone else is lower on the list. Doesn’t fit everyone’s view of a peaceful world, does it?

Earth is a melting pot of a great number of religions and beliefs, one major reason for the fact that people still quarrel and wage war on each other. Take the world today. Islamic fundamentalists are waging war on the West, on America in what they call Jihad, the holy war. For those participating in Jihad, their cause is to hate and destroy something they do not believe in, something that goes against their beliefs. For them, peace cannot be achieved before the “infidels” are destroyed or converted, before everyone believes in Allah and adheres to His rules. That’s not most of the world’s view on peace. Western thinking is more liberal in defining peace so it involves all religions. Freedom. Freedom to do, say and believe in whatever one says. Looks good on paper. In reality, someone or something must always be at the top. One or a few religions or beliefs are above most. To say that one may believe and live without being prejudiced doesn’t ring true in reality.

“Nothing is impossible, just improbable,” someone once said. The quest for peace, for peaceful co-existence fits this quote quite well. We don’t all think alike, believe alike, nor do we all dream alike. There is no one definition of peace on this planet. We all want something different. Sure, it’s easy to say that we should all stop fighting and arguing, but we’re humans. There’s always something nagging us. Even as nations we can’t just drop everything and begin to live happily with everyone else. It’s a good idea, but all nations are run by individuals or groups of individuals. There’s always something in the way. Such as religion and beliefs. We don’t agree with everything in this world, especially with everyone else’s opinions, beliefs nor looks. One quote we have all heard at one point in our lives is ”Can’t we all just get along?” When is this day coming? When we stop being humans.

Jani Helle
08.09.02
English Lang. 1